From: Timo T. <tim...@ik...> - 2008-10-22 05:28:56
|
Krzysztof Oledzki wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Timo Teräs wrote: > >> Cyrus Rahman wrote: >>>> ol...@an... wrote: >>>>>> Can you check to see that the code in HEAD (without your patch) has >>>>>> the problem your code corrects? If it doesn't, perhaps you could >>>>>> remove the portion with the signal handlers and leave the additional >>>>>> logging. >>>>> OK, I'll do it. >>>> Great. I'll just wait for this then. >>> >>> After my initial correspondence with ol...@an... (and before >>> addressing the list), I did inspect the code and I do recommend that >>> his patch be reversed, per my original suggestion. The problem he >>> addressed in his patch was in fact already fixed in HEAD. >> >> Yes. And as olel posted back to list, he promised to fix this. So I'm >> waiting for him to submit a patch. If that doesn't happen for a while >> I'll fix it myself. >> >> This is not too urgent issue, since it's just duplicating parts of same >> functionality instead of causing bugs or something. But something I'll >> get fixed before a new release. So yes, it's on my todo list. > > OK, sorry for the delay. Indeed, most of my patch should be reverted as > it is no longer neccesary in the current -HEAD branch. So ACK, please > revert it. > > I wrote "most" because I believe some small fragments that touches logs > may still be useful. It that's OK I'll prepare a small, stripped patch, > that will only reintroduce these changes. I was expecting a revert patch. That would be most useful. Otherwise I'll do the revert by hand. I'll take the time to do this tomorrow, so unless I don't have patch by then, I'll do it myself. Thanks, Timo |